Entry #20049: Gender-affirming care in Iowa

Current Version

RegionIowa
IssueGender-affirming care
StatusRestricted
Start DateJul 1, 2025
End Date(none)
DescriptionHF 1049 denies GAC coverage to any transgender individuals; however, prior rulings by the Iowa Supreme Court has stated that coverage is to be mandated due to a previous bill's violation of the Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause. A new court case would have to occur for the current restriction to be blocked.
Sourceshttps://transitics.substack.com/p/transitics-comprehensive-anti-trans
https://www.aclu.org/cases/vasquez-v-iowa-department-human-services
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGE/91/Attachments/HF1049_GovLetter.pdf


Revision History (2)

edited by mineszilla. A new court case had to occur to determine if the new restriction is unconstitutional.

Helpful?
0
Old Value (Original) New Value (Current)
Value(REMOVED)Restricted
Special StatusAmbiguousRestricted
DescriptionHF 1049 denies GAC coverage to any transgender individuals; however, it is unclear if the bill can actually be enforced due to a prior ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court stating that coverage is to be mandated due to a previous bill's violation of the Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause.HF 1049 denies GAC coverage to any transgender individuals; however, prior rulings by the Iowa Supreme Court has stated that coverage is to be mandated due to a previous bill's violation of the Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause. A new court case would have to occur for the current restriction to be blocked.
Show Difference
HF 1049 denies GAC coverage to any transgender individuals; however, it is unclear if the bill can actually be enforced due to a prior ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court stating that coverage is to be mandated due to a previous bill's violation of the Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause. rulings by the Iowa Supreme Court has stated that coverage is to be mandated due to a previous bill's violation of the Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause. A new court case would have to occur for the current restriction to be blocked.

created by mineszilla

Helpful?
0
Original entry
StatusAmbiguous
Start DateJul 1, 2025
End Date(none)
DescriptionHF 1049 denies GAC coverage to any transgender individuals; however, it is unclear if the bill can actually be enforced due to a prior ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court stating that coverage is to be mandated due to a previous bill's violation of the Iowa Constitution's equal protection clause.
Sourceshttps://transitics.substack.com/p/transitics-comprehensive-anti-trans https://www.aclu.org/cases/vasquez-v-iowa-department-human-services https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGE/91/Attachments/HF1049_GovLetter.pdf